Many years ago, Haim Hefer
produced a Hebrew adaptation
of Norman Byfield Thomas’ “Naughty
Little Flea“, depicting an ambitious young flea who, born in the hair of
a lousy mouse, kept leaping up from dog to donkey to horse, paving its way all
the way up to Cabinet. “Always be a yes-man,” stated the song’s rhymed moral,
“and you’ll be able to leap up”. Hefer – a prominent mainstream songwriter,
poet and columnist, identified with Rabin’s camp within the Labor Party – neither
confirmed nor bothered to deny the popular belief that his Little Flea was inspired
by no other than Shimon Peres. In return, when Hefer died in 2012, Peres – Israel’s
President at the time – laconically expressed his condolences, but refrained
from attending his funeral.

That incident came to mind these days, as a heated debate was
aroused by the decision of the Joint
List (the Knesset representatives of several Israeli-Arab parties) not to
attend Peres’ funeral. The decision was explained by recalling some less-celebrated
scenes in Peres’ long public career, from his role in the military regime imposed
on Israel’s Arabs in 1948-1966, through his pivotal role in obtaining Israel’s
nuclear arsenal, to attending neither Arafat’s funeral (with whom he had
won the Nobel Peace Prize), nor that of any prominent Israeli-Arab leader.

This non-attendance ignited a public outrage that lasted for several days.
This procedure has become an Israeli-Jewish ritual: once in a while, we all
come together in a heated debate on “our” misbehaving Arabs. A good opportunity
for many suspected Peaceniks to prove, as the “leader” of the Labor Party recently
put it, that they are not Arab-lovers, and won’t hesitate to attack the
Arabs whenever they deserve it – and they always do. Previous instances of this
ritual include the Arab Party’s objection to define Lebanon’s Hizbollah as a
terrorist group, or its refusal to sign a surplus vote agreement with the Zionist
liberal-left party Meretz, a grave offense indeed. The ritual consists of public
expressions of sorrow and disappointment at our Arabs, usually preceded by a
disclaimer like “there is no denial of the discrimination of Israeli Arabs,
but…”, or “I’ve always been a strong supporter of peace, but this time…”. In
the next stage, Arab public figures are summoned to television – to prove our
open-mindedness – but only to be humiliated by a flock of vociferous interviewers,
trying to surpass one another in silencing their Arab guest, pouring on him
or her their “disappointment” and offering their “benevolent advice” as to how
a good Arab in Israel should behave. This time it was Israel’s most popular
Channel2 to perform the public lynch, with a right-wing analyst mumbling “you
missed it, you missed it” while Ayman Odeh’s, head of the Joint List, was reasoning
his position, whereas a liberal colleague showed his progressiveness by suggesting
that boycotting Peres’ funeral was “perhaps justified, but definitely unwise”.

Especially revealing is a line of argument – recycled by Ha’aretz‘s
Uri Misgav and many others – that played off Mahmoud Abbas, Head of the Palestinian
Authority, against the Israeli-Arab representatives. Is Abbas “not Palestinian
enough” for Ayman Odeh?! If Abbas could attend Peres’ funeral (humiliatingly
pushed to a back row, not even mentioned in Netanyahu’s speech, but who cares),
why couldn’t the representative of Israel’s Palestinians attend it? After all,
unlike Abbas and his ilk, they are free Israeli citizens, and Peres was their
president too.

This line of argument is revealing because it exposes a typical
Jewish-Israeli attitude: first, we know better than the Palestinians what’s
good for them (and not attending the funeral was therefore “wrong”); the notion
that Odeh represents his voters rather than the exclusively-Jewish panelists
at Channel2 seems to have never crossed their minds. Second, there should be
a standard for authentic Palestinianness, and all Palestinians should conform
to it; Palestinians diverging from it are “wrong”, “extremist”, “disappointing”
etc. And who is the authentic Palestinian for us? The one who accepts the Israeli
narrative, and does attend the funeral of “Israel’s great man of Peace”.

Let’s compare Abbas to Odeh: 81-year-old Abbas has never been
elected, his commitment to his alleged electorate is minimal, he survives thanks
to Israel’s (and American) economic, diplomatic and military support, granted
to him for keeping the West Bank relatively quiet: a puppet leader serving the
Israeli occupation (with occasional tokens of symbolic protest, mainly in United
Nations forums). Unlike Abbas, 41-year-old Ayman Odeh was elected by almost
11% of Israel’s citizens, most of them Arabs, whom he represents in the Knesset
as the head of Israel’s third-biggest party. Now who is more likely to express
a free, representative and "authentic" Palestinian voice? –For many
Israeli leftists, it’s obviously Abbas. They’d rather be flattered by a puppet-dictator
than listen to an elected Palestinian-Israeli leader; they even use their puppet
against that elected leader. That’s Colonialism par excellence, just
like the absurd expectation that all Palestinians be the same: “we” are sophisticated
and entitled each to his or her own opinion, but “they” are all primitive and
must share the same view. By the way: they don’t. Odeh’s absence from Peres’
funeral – as well as Abbas’ attendance – have both come under heavy fire within
the Palestinian camp. Believe it or not, different people have different thoughts,
even if they are Arabs.

The Funeral of Peace

“Shimon
Peres’ Funeral Proved That anti-Semitism Is Dead,” wrote Gideon Levy: with
scores and dozens of world leaders attending – President Obama and his predecessor
Clinton, US flag at half-staff etc. – Israel’s self-victimization of “the whole
world is against us” sounds more absurd than ever. Nice try, Mr. Levy, but no
cigar: the extreme right-wing (comprising Netanyahu’s government and its wide
margins in both directions) already has a answer at hand, developed to combat
the indisputable global tribute to the Holocaust: “the Gentiles love us only
when we are dead”. Or when we make territorial concessions, which is just the
same.

This time, it is Ha’aretz’s Rogel
Alpher who has hit the nail on its head. Since Peres cannot be viewed apart
from the so-called Oslo Peace Process, Alpher claims, and since rejectionist
Israel views Oslo as a mistake, not to say “crime”, Peres’ glorious funeral
aroused a dissonance: All this honor – for a terrible political mistake?! The
dissonance has been solved by a simple solution: portraying Oslo and Peres as
the incarnation of Israel’s yearning for peace. We tried everything, even our
heroic Peres, the tireless optimist, this “Last Giant” (in the pathetic words
of Ari Shavit, the pompous mouthpiece of the Israeli mainstream), tried his
best – but, significantly, it all failed because of the other side. In Alpher’s
penetrating words: “Peres proved in Oslo that peace was impossible, for which
we are grateful. He definitely deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.” Rebuking the
Israeli Palestinians is part of this narrative, as expressed in one of the arguments
repeatedly hurled at them: “if Peres isn’t good enough for you, who is?” The
Joint List’s refusal to attend the funeral should be interpreted along these
lines: as a refusal to join the narrative that blames the Palestinians for the
lack of peace.

Dr.
Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and grew up in Israel.
He has a B.A. in computer science, an M.A. in comparative literature,
and a Ph.D. in Jewish studies. He is a university teacher in
Israel. He also works as a literary translator (from German, English,
and Dutch). HaCohen's work has been published widely in Israel.
"Letter From Israel" appears occasionally at Antiwar.com.